Loading...
10/22/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER October 22, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair Ron Stuart Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Absent: Mark Jonnatti Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning & Development Services Manager Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Requests - None. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests - None. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Charalampos & Sevasti Alexiou (Frenchy’s Rockaway Grill, Inc.) for variances to allow expansion of an existing deck with no additional parking and reduced open space of 11% at 7 Rockaway Street, Miller’s Replat, Lots 2 & 3 w/vacated Beach Dr. on west, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98-72 The applicant operates a restaurant with a 972-square foot outdoor wooden deck, approved by the City on August 8, 1991. The applicant wishes to expand the deck by 649-square feet, aligning it with the restaurant’s south wall and adding 50 seats to the outdoor seating area. Frenchy’s Rockaway Grill, whose application for variances to the City’s open space and parking requirements was approved in 1991, wishes to extend the deck. The enlarged deck will not be enclosed and no landscape material will be removed. A solid block wall will buffer the extended outdoor seating area from the adjacent property to the south. No on-site space is available for additional parking. Staff recommends approval. The restaurant is in a busy beach environment where many walk-in customers park “off-site” while visiting area amenities. Surrounding properties are developed and no space is available for additional parking. The applicant wishes to expand the deck to serve existing patrons more efficiently. Staff feels the expansion within the southwest corner of the property is a reasonable development pattern and will bring the existing deck into alignment with the restaurant’s southern wall. A requirement to construct a buffer along the south property line and replace poorly maintained landscape materials, will benefit the adjacent property owner by minimizing negative impacts the deck could have. In response to a question, Planning & Development Services Manager Sandy Glatthorn said the environmental plan presented by the applicant would replace one dead Washingtonian palm. Ed Armstrong, representative, reviewed the request. With plentiful public parking nearby, he said a variance for 3 parking spaces would have no impact. He said Frenchy’s had received a City variance after the fact for the current deck, which was built by former owners without a permit. DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) had denied Frenchy’s last request for a variance to extend the porch. Mr. Armstrong said the State Hearing Officer, who heard Frenchy’s appeal, only expressed concern regarding Standard #4, that the extension might injure surrounding properties. Mr. Armstrong said Frenchy’s has worked with staff to mitigate the impact of a deck expansion on the abutting Clearwater Beach Hotel property, and has agreed to construct an 8-foot high masonry wall on the subject property’s south border. He said Frenchy’s has been unable to dialog with the owner of the Clearwater Beach Hotel regarding this issue. He said the hotel’s concrete wall that overlooks the deck has only 4 small bathroom windows. The proposed wall will add a buffer where none currently exists. He said the added deck space will not attract more customers but will serve current ones. He said Frenchy’s would accept the conditions proposed by staff but requested the deadline to obtain a building permit allow more time for FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) approval. Steve Klar, architect, submitted 2 renderings of the proposed deck expansion. In response to a question, he estimated the buffer wall will extend 16 feet from the building to the beach. No other support was expressed. Josh Magidson, representing the Clearwater Beach Hotel, said the hotel consistently has opposed the construction and expansion of the subject deck. He said the original deck was built in 1987 without a permit. He said in 1995, a Hearing Officer had upheld DCAB’s denial of the restaurant’s last request to expand the deck. He said the expansion will increase the restaurant’s customer base and revenues. He stated the expansion of the Palm Pavilion deck was permitted as that restaurant has no residential neighbors. He said the applicant has not proved the expansion will not cause additional disturbances to the hotel and be materially injurious to nearby residential rooms. He said approval would overturn previous DCAB and State Hearing Officer decisions. Mr. Magidson distributed a copy of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, print date March 2, 1998, that indicates the subject property is designated as Recreation/Open Space. He said no development should be authorized until the land use plan is changed. In response to a question, Mr. Magidson presented no evidence that hotel guests are disturbed by restaurant activity. It was noted the hotel’s guest rooms do not overlook the restaurant’s deck and no speakers or live music will be played outside. Mr. Magidson argued there has been no change of circumstances or a substantial difference between this request and the one which was denied previously by the City and State. The hotel never had the opportunity to oppose the original construction as it had occurred without permit. In response to a question, he said if the deck is extended, it will be more difficult for the hotel to assign guests to rooms adjacent to an outdoor eating establishment. He said the extension will encroach on the abutting residence. No other opposition was expressed. Mr. Armstrong said the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the subject property is resort facility. He said neither the Hearing Officer nor staff had concluded the expansion was motivated by economic gain. He said construction of the buffer wall will make any assumed impact immaterial. In response to a question, Mr. Klar said the current deck is 43 feet from the hotel. After the expansion, the deck will be 10 feet from the hotel. Discussion ensued regarding the ambiance of the restaurant’s beach-front location. It was felt Clearwater beach needs more outdoor eating opportunities. It was suggested more restaurants similar to Frenchy’s are needed. The difficulty of being seated at one of Frenchy’s outside tables was noted. It was stated the restaurant closes at midnight and does not play loud music. It was felt an 8-foot wall would provide an adequate buffer. It was stated the hotel had not proved the deck expansion would injure its business. It was noted the restaurant had made an effort to work with the hotel toward an amicable solution. Member Johnson moved to grant a variance to the parking requirements to allow 0 additional spaces where 3 are required for the new deck and a 14% open space variance to allow 11% open space where 25% is required because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 12 months from the date of this public hearing; 3) applicant shall obtain the requisite permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for all construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line prior to obtaining a building permit.; 4) applicant shall consult with the Traffic Engineer to determine the appropriate application of the Pinellas County Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance prior to obtaining a building permit; 5) applicant shall erect a solid block wall on the south side of the deck connected to and in alignment with the southern main building wall in order to buffer the adjoining property; this wall shall be a minimum of 8 feet above the floor of the deck and shall be finished with stucco or paint that is consistent with the existing development and compatible with surrounding properties; 6) applicant shall not enclose the deck; 7) no outdoor speakers shall be on the deck; and 8) applicant shall replace any existing landscaping that is dead or dying and shall install landscape treatment at the south end of the proposed deck extension after submitting a landscape plan for review and approval by Staff. Applicant must obtain an approved landscape plan prior to obtaining a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Manning Resorts, Inc. (Dunes Motel) for a variance to allow replacement of a 42-inch high chain link fence in the waterfront setback at 514 S. Gulfview Boulevard, Bayside Sub. No. 5, Blk A, Lot 1 & 2 and riparian rights, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98-73 The applicant plans to replace a fence which is in disrepair. A variance is required to allow a 42-inch chain link fence in the waterfront yard. The new fence height, consistent with other area fences, is required by insurance companies for safety reasons. Staff feels the replacement fence will be in harmony with the environment and allow the applicant to be in compliance with safety obligations. Any economic gain is outweighed by safety factors. After the new fence is installed, visitors will be permitted on or near the sea wall and the owner and guests will not be deprived of enjoyment of the property. It was questioned why City code conflicts with insurance company requirements. Ms. Glatthorn said the new code considers these types of regulations. Alan Manning, applicant, requested the variance be approved. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Moran moved to grant a fence height variance of 6 inches because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) requisite fence permit shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of the public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3) Viking Motel Clearwater Beach, Inc. (The Viking Resort) for variances to allow construction of a poolside storage building on a lot 63.2 feet wide, setback 1 foot from the west property line and 5.6 feet from Clearwater Harbor with a reduced clear space of 1 foot at 124 Brightwater Drive, Bayside Sub. No. 2, Lot 52, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98-74 The applicant plans to construct a pool side storage building. The subject motel is in an area of older developed properties, many of which are non-conforming. The request would not be out of character with the neighborhood nor add significantly to area non-conformity. The on-site storage will minimize visual clutter. In 1996, this property was granted variances to construct a 2nd story owner residence, which never was built. The motel still lacks proper storage facilities. The addition would benefit the welfare and convenience of guests. Staff recommends approval. Patrick Maguire, representative, said the addition will solve on-site storage issues. He requested additional time to obtain a building permit. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson moved to grant 1) a lot width variance of 86.8 feet where 150 feet is required; 2) a side setback variance of 11 feet where 12 feet is required; 3) a clear space variance of 12 feet where 13 feet is required, and 4) a rear setback variance of 19.4 feet where 25 feet is required because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 1 year from the date of the public hearing; and 3) applicant shall seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control as required under Chapter 39 of the Building code for an 18-foot setback where no construction is allowed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments - None ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 1998, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments Ms. Glatthorn distributed a suggested schedule of meeting dates for 1999. DCAB will discuss the dates on November 12,1998. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the October 15, 1998, draft of the revised Land Development Code has been distributed. DCAB will discuss the document during a public hearing on November 12, 1998. A briefing will be held at 4:00 p.m. in Chambers on November 2, 1998. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the hearing regarding the LCC appeal was continued to January 5, 1999. The City Commission has passed the related ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Board will hear future applications related to tower heights. Concern was expressed regarding the Standards for Approval. Regarding Standard #3, which addresses personal economic gain, it was felt every time a business increases, financial gain will result. It was hoped the new Land Development Code will clarify this issue. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 2:01 p.m.